Template talk:WikiProject Portals

Historical Flag
I would like to add a flag to the template  to mark old or inactive pages. Similar to historical, but populating a WikiProject Portals category for tracking. I was looking at WikiProject Computing to see if I could figure out how they added all their extra parameters, but I don't want to jack up this template. Thoughts? — AfroThundr (t•c) 16:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also as well. — AfroThundr (t•c) 17:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should just be able to add another note per Template:WPBannerMeta, passing through that parameter to activate it - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Evad37 &#91;talk] 17:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * — AfroThundr (t•c) 17:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Expansion
We'll need to fill in the "Usage" section with full usage information, not that it's any different from any other WikiProject Banner, but we should be complete. Also, we need to list our other templates in "See Also" — AfroThundr (t•c) 00:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Question on your edit. Trying to figure out what all the WPBannerDoc lines are for. Would you mind elaborating on their use? &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 21:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Each one generates the documentation for a single parameter in a form that is consistent with other WikiProject banner templates. For example,  produces this:


 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's neat. So we don't have to manually explain the standard params? Nice. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 22:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Portals incorrectly marks itself as historical
The template is displayed on its own page, and reports itself as historical. Please fix. &mdash; The Transhumanist  23:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've neutered the code a bit, in case the issue is being replicated elsewhere in the namespace. It will need to be fixed properly asap though by someone who knows parserfunctions. Cesde v a  (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * by making it WP:INCLUDEONLY content - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it supposed to display all of its optional parameters on its own page? It doesn't actually produce the category or anything. See WikiProject Computing for example, or historical for that matter. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 00:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Would something like this not work for adding the category?

Cesde v a (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some text would render for non-historical pages but no-one would notice given the similar color to the background. Cesde v a  (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean there. The template will currently add the historical category to pages when  is specified. It doesn't add itself to the category, even without this latest edit. I think it's supposed to display all of its optional messages on its own page for demonstration purposes (see links above), so we should probably undo the last edits. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 01:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is it may not be obvious that the historical message is a demo, rather than a real message - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it is generally understood that a template viewed on its own page is a demonstration, especially WikiProject banners. Again, see WikiProject Computing (btw, check its "show" link). If people were confused by that, they'd also have problems with historical or any of it's friends. I believe it makes more sense to show all of the banner components so that the user knows immediately that it has that capability without having to read the docs. Not really a problem at the moment, but if our banner eventually grows as large as WikiProject Computing or similar, it would be useful. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 01:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the above? &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 04:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Maybe have a note at the top of the documentation saying that it's just a demo? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Feel free to tweak the wording. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be a need for a special notice. It is normal behaviour for all WikiProject banners that are built around (as this one is) to display a demo copy that shows what it looks like if all parameters are set. See for example the 100 or so that are displayed by  - if you click the "[show]" link following "More information", you get such notes as:
 * This template has been marked as needing immediate attention.
 * This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
 * An editor has requested a photograph or image to be included in this template to improve its quality. Once the image is uploaded, please remove the |image-needed= parameter from this template.
 * An editor has requested a map or maps to be included in this template to improve its quality. Once the map is uploaded, please remove the |map-needed= parameter from this template.
 * This template lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Once the references are added, please remove the |unref= parameter from this template.
 * This template lacks Geocoordinate data. Once the Geocoordinates data is added, please remove the |geocoord-needed= parameter from this template.
 * none of which should be taken as actual requests to do something about the template. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much my whole argument, just explained more eloquently. I don't particularly care what happens to the banner, so you could remove it if you feel the need. Although it's not hurting anything by staying there either. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 02:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A little note on the documentation doesn't do any harm, and does some good if it prevents any editors from being confused or thinking the template is marked as historical – which was a real concern, even for an experienced editor like . - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: MAIN_CAT
For any page not in the portal namespace, there is already a tracking category for them. I'm not sure we need another one for everything !portal. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 01:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now that I think about it, anything that's not a portal should be NA-importance. On another matter, should the MAIN_CAT be Category:Portals? It's description says its meant to be for portal namespace, and its linked from Portal nav footer, which is aimed more towards readers rather than editors. So maybe these portal talk pages should be in a separate "All portals" category (as a subcat to Category:Portals pages). I assume the intention is to list all the portal talk pages together, rather than split into FPo-Class, Portal-Class, and perhaps other classes in the future. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I'm questioning the need to have them listed under at all. I'm perfectly fine with the subcategory scheme setup with  and . Plus they're available under, at least, until we get around to grading them eventually. Now that I think about it,  could just be used for the core WikiProject pages and guidelines, which we'd probably just add the category to manually. Probably not needed though.&mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 03:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think we should leave  empty, and allow  to be a container category, like it was before this template was tagged on everything. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, that makes sense - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding category when Portal maintenance status is not on the portal
Would it be possible to have a tracking category that contains portals that have not got the portal maintenance tag on them using this template? I was thinking of checking if the invoking of Lua returned nothing, then add it to the category, but I am unsure how to do this. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 10:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Read my mind, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I don't have the Lua skills to do that yet though. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 11:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, with a note shown on the banner. Pages which aren't really portals may be excluded with na. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirects and disambiguation portals are now excluded automatically. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Class update needed
The classes listed for portals do not correspond to the classes established by discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, so updating assessments does not register in the associated categories. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

, Is this in your area of interest? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have we decided yet what the classes will be called? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the new classes have been finalized and are available on the assessment page. I tried to get the project banner to recognize the custom classes, but I'm having trouble getting it to work. You can see my attempts in the sandbox history and the class subpage. I was also attempting to get all portals without an explicit class to default to unassessed. Assistance with getting this working would be appreciated. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out. Figuring out the proper syntax with the nested templates was throwing me for a loop. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 05:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rating system not ready for prime time
AfroThundr,

I didn't report the rating system yet, because there's something wrong with the WikiProject Portals template. It's showing old obsolete text, and a strike-through. Not quite ready for a general announcement. &mdash; The Transhumanist  06:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well besides the message text, the assessment and categorization part is functioning correctly. I believe the strikethrough was an attempt to remove the builtin string "This page does not require assessment..." that WPBannerMeta gives to portals. is there a better way to fix this, or should we just let the default message stay (and contradict it with an additional note, like it is now)? It would be nice if we could fix it without forking the meta banner to a /meta subpage or something, but we've forked most of the rest of the system already, so. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the only way to fix it properly is to fork the WPBannerMeta template. Or at least the main template and the subtemplates that generate the quality and importance rows, the rest of the WPBannerMeta subpages can still be used as-is. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅: Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready for prime time now, methinks. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 15:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Unexpected appearance of template on some portals
For example, here it has a question mark icon with the "complete" flag, no background colour to the flag, states "This page does not require a rating on the project's assessment guidelines", which is not true, and strikethrough text for the link for assessment guidelines, though the link does seem to be working. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the strike-through text, see migrated thread above. As for the icons, that was another problem I tried to fix in several other of our templates, and failed to squash in the actual banner. The way forward would seem to be forking the meta banner template to get the exact results we want. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 03:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so I will assume that it is in competent hands, and will be fixed when practicable. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixing the icons and background colours requires edit to protected templates: Template talk:Class/icon and Template talk:Class/colour - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , both requested edits have been done. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks . — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's awesome.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related
With our custom ratings now implemented in Class, I've tweaked our cat class template to reflect that. So now I'm thinking that WikiProject Portals/cat class and WikiProject Portals/cat importance should be in the template namespace. AFAIK, they're the last holdouts still sitting in our project space, besides userboxes. Do you think they should live under this template (just changing the namespace and keeping the name), or something else? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfork
I have a version in the /sandbox which I believe behaves exactly in the way you wish, which much less "forking" of the meta-template.. Please see tests on /testcases &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please let me know of any problems. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

would you like to delete (G7) the following unused subtemplates? Thank you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta/core
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta/doc
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta/importancescale (just the redirect not its target)
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta/qualityscale (just the redirect not its target)
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/WPBannerMeta/templatepage
 * Template:WikiProject Portals/class/core
 * ✅ - Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Class and importance categories
Hi, it seems that the recent edits to this template emptied all but one category in Category:Portal pages by class and all categories in Category:Portal pages by importance. Was this the intent? ✗ plicit  13:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry I think that was me. Should be filling up again now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)